Loomis v. Brown Cnty.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1902 |
| Citation | 91 N.W. 309,15 S.D. 606 |
| Parties | LOOMIS v. BROWN COUNTY. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Brown county.
Action by E. Loomis against Brown county on liquor prosecution fund warrants. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.S. H. Cranmer, for appellant. J. H. Perry, for respondent.
The plaintiff filed his petition with the board of county commissioners of Brown county, in which he alleged, in substance, that during the years 1891 and 1892 S. H. Cranmer was the duly elected and acting state's attorney for said Brown county; that on the 17th day of August, 1891, the said Brown county was justly indebted to one J. W. Reed in the sum of $9.90 for services as a witness and securing testimony in a certain case pending in said county, in which the said state of South Dakota was plaintiff and R. E. Mauke was defendant; that said action was brought by the said state's attorney under the provisions of chapter 101, Laws 1890; that on the said 17th day of August, 1891, the said S. H. Cranmer, as such state's attorney, issued to said Reed the following order, addressed to the county treasurer of Brown county: “Pay to J. W. Reed, Esq., or order, nine dollars and ninety cents ($9.90), for services securing testimony in the case of the state of South Dakota against R. E. Mauke, out of money in your hands belonging to the liquor prosecution fund;” that thereafter, for value, said warrant or order was duly sold and assigned to this plaintiff; and that this plaintiff has ever since been, and now is, the owner and holder thereof. The petition then proceeds to set out a number of other orders, drawn in a similar manner, to different parties, amounting, with interest, to $718.67, all of which were duly assigned to the plaintiff. It is further alleged in said petition that said warrants were drawn by said state's attorney separately upon the “liquor prosecution fund.” It is further alleged that on the 29th day of April, 1893, each and all of said warrants were duly presented to the county treasurer of said county, and were indorsed, “Not paid for want of funds,” and each was registered in the office of the county treasurer before mentioned for payment. It is further alleged that there are no funds in the hands of the county treasurer of said county belonging to the liquor prosecution fund, nor have there been any for several years, and that the law creating said fund has been repealed. It is further alleged that on the 9th day of March, 1899, a hearing on said petition was had before the said board of county commissioners, and the following action was taken, to wit: “On motion, the petition of E. Loomis for the payment of certain warrants was rejected.” Thereupon the plaintiff appealed from said action of the said board of county commissioners to the circuit court, where the same was tried in August, 1899, by the court without a jury. Upon the trial in the circuit court, the court made findings of fact and stated conclusions of law sustaining the action of the board of county commissioners, and from the judgment rendered thereon plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The court's findings were substantially as follows: That during the term of office of the said S. H. Cranmer as state's attorney for said Brown county, he drew the several warrants mentioned in the complaint in this action, and that the said warrants were drawn on the “liquor prosecution fund,” and that the said plaintiff is the holder of the said warrants; that at the date of the several warrants there was not, nor has there since been, any fund known as the “Liquor Prosecu...
To continue reading
Request your trial